Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Angry White Man
tnr.com — What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing...
reed311- 387 diggs
- digg it
- tracker198x, on 01/08/2008, -82/+101another smear piece by the neocons now that paul is about to do well in new hampshire. good timing eh?
- SwingCorey, on 01/08/2008, -50/+55No. "Smear" is when allegations are made using mere suspicion or innuendo. (As in Hillary's tactics claiming she has dirt on Obama's drug use, but is claiming to keep the campaign clean.)
This is his own words - in print - used against him.
Ron Paul supporters - wake up! His "revolution" isn't new - he's been a conspiracy-theorist nutbag for a long while.- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -28/+9http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397 ...
Mises Institute, where Ron Paul is well connected, friends and alliances:
To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books.
The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession.- kfed2, on 01/08/2008, -5/+9Consider the 10Th Amendment - States DO have a right to leave whenever they want. That's why, after the war, the North had to release Jefferson Davis and could not charge him with any crimes - he HAD NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS!!
- BenMuldowney74, on 01/08/2008, -9/+6i just want to warn the Ron bots not to click on the google ads on the new republics site. that would be click fraud and would get the new republics google adsense account pulled. DO NOT CLICK ON THE GOOGLE ADS. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO SHOW THE NEW REPUBLIC that you disagree with them.
- ChaosMotor, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2Obviously racism and homophobia aren't acceptable and if the allegations are true, deplorable; but the rest of their "dirt" doesn't hold water. Supporting a state's right for successionism when they disagree with federal policy? Arguing against the growth of federalism enabled by the Civil War? Distrust of the federal government and federal reserve? Support for local militias, strong gun rights, and encouraging self protection? Might as well string me up also!
What's with a supposedly liberal publication doing supporting the federal government so strongly? OH! That's right - establishment "liberalism" is the same as establishment "conservativism" - that is, tyrannical totalitarianism with different goals but common means - a strong central government that can force people to do whatever the leadership wants.- jenniferstruth, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0This is actually a pretty old story. From what I remember these were written by a ghost-writer. Rather that is true or not I am unsure. I do believe Paul is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I personlly believe the true man of peace who will change our country is Kucinich. I agree with ChaosMotor above. W e are all being blinded by the people the powers that be want us to be blinded by. While we are all arguing about Paul, more of our civil liberties are taken away and our dollar drops further and another prison is built to house all of us "protesters" it is time to stop fighting about which people we might want to lead us and start coming to agreements about the policies we want to govern us, that is the most important. When we get our policies and our beliefs agreed upon, noone can mess with them and we can start making better decision about those we choose to lead us. Now we are forced to make decisions in a panic. Most people like Paul because he speaks to the heart of all Americans. He speaks of our freedoms and liberties, the very things that make us so proud to be Americans, we are listening because we are under attack. Let us fight our attackers and not each other.
Peace, Love and Respect,
Jen
- jenniferstruth, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0This is actually a pretty old story. From what I remember these were written by a ghost-writer. Rather that is true or not I am unsure. I do believe Paul is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I personlly believe the true man of peace who will change our country is Kucinich. I agree with ChaosMotor above. W e are all being blinded by the people the powers that be want us to be blinded by. While we are all arguing about Paul, more of our civil liberties are taken away and our dollar drops further and another prison is built to house all of us "protesters" it is time to stop fighting about which people we might want to lead us and start coming to agreements about the policies we want to govern us, that is the most important. When we get our policies and our beliefs agreed upon, noone can mess with them and we can start making better decision about those we choose to lead us. Now we are forced to make decisions in a panic. Most people like Paul because he speaks to the heart of all Americans. He speaks of our freedoms and liberties, the very things that make us so proud to be Americans, we are listening because we are under attack. Let us fight our attackers and not each other.
- kfed2, on 01/08/2008, -5/+9Consider the 10Th Amendment - States DO have a right to leave whenever they want. That's why, after the war, the North had to release Jefferson Davis and could not charge him with any crimes - he HAD NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS!!
- Drood, on 01/09/2008, -6/+11I'm so glad there is a vague thread of common sense left here on Digg. The Ron Paul fellatio that goes on endlessly is sickening, especially as it's clearly from folk who haven't taken five minutes to actually LOOK INTO THE MANS BACKGROUND. I mean just from skimming the piece he hates gays, blacks etc... All I can imagine is somehow are hardcore group of Paultards have infiltrated Digg and are gaming the system to get stories up and promote the guy. Still, I don't know why I'm surprised since, given the blind adoration, the IQ of most Digg users who support Paul drops when they go to the bathroom...
- ChaosMotor, on 01/09/2008, -2/+3Yeah, skimming doesn't work, the article even says he probably didn't write much if any of the racist or homophobic portions.
- nutsakharry, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2"just from skimming the piece he hates gays, blacks"
you obviously already had hatred for Ron Paul, otherwise you wouldn't let yourself say something so stupid.
- bullcutter, on 01/09/2008, -6/+3those are NOT his words, RTFA. way to help perpetuate the smear, though.
- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -28/+9http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397 ...
- NYC83, on 01/08/2008, -25/+38tracker, the irony of your comment is too rich. news comes out of newsletters written by ron paul (or in his name) that espouse, among other things, wide-ranging john birch style conspiracy theories, and you respond by implying they are the work of a neo-con conspiracy.
- FritzKatz, on 01/08/2008, -21/+33The New Republic is run by NEOCONS???? Wow, you are grasping at straws!
- Minarchian, on 01/08/2008, -9/+12Name the differences between a Neo-Con and a Socialist.
Other than flavor here and there they are the same.- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -11/+10Name the differences between Ron Paul and David Duke.
Other than flavor here and there they are the same. - arbulus, on 01/09/2008, -1/+10Neo-con is ultra right-wing philosophy. Socialism is left wing philosophy. They are completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
- 14justice, on 01/09/2008, -4/+2Totalitarianism has no "spectrum." The labels so frequently used are intended to divide the people into opposing camps while diverting them from the only real issue: more freedom or less freedom.
- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -11/+10Name the differences between Ron Paul and David Duke.
- Minarchian, on 01/08/2008, -9/+12Name the differences between a Neo-Con and a Socialist.
- notmike721, on 01/08/2008, -11/+11No, thats it thats it. The new republic is now run by neo -cons. You paulinists have lost it.
- SuperMoses, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1And he got dugg up! The RP forces are out!
- Minarchian, on 01/08/2008, -13/+23The worse of people come out at election day. Including those who smear. They wait until the days of the election and attempt to take a politician out of the race. Truth means nothing to these types of people.
From the Paul campaign:
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
###
On TNR
The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly, a "Progressive" who believed that the Constitution should be abolished in favor of the will of governing elites. Here is what Virginia Postrel wrote about him several years ago:
Crolyism overturned the ideal of limited government in favor of a combination of elite power — commissions to regulate and plan — and mass democracy.... Frustrated with constitutional limits, Croly wrote, “It remains ... true ... that every popular government should in the end, and after a necessarily prolonged deliberation, possess the power of taking any action, which, in the opinion of a decisive majority of the people, is demanded by the public welfare.” This statement, while extreme, pretty much sums up today’s governing philosophy.
So, keep in mind that this is the philosophy behind TNR. It is a view that the political elite need to tell everyone else what to do, and use lethal force against people who resist.
###
TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication's style--hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018 ...
###
On the slander by Kirchick
An emailer informed me this morning that a young kid whom he called a "grossly uneducated, pimply-faced youth" slandered both Ron Paul and myself on the Tucker Carlson show last night. The pimply-faced youth (PFY) is one Jamie Kirchick, who writes for the left-wing, pro-war New Republic magazine. In the YouTube video of the conversation the PFY asserts over and over that Ron Paul is a "racist." When Carlson asks him if he ever heard Ron make a racist remark he says "No." But then, with a Gotcha! look on his face, the PFY announces: "BUT," he DID attend a conference on secession in 1995!! Aha! Gotcha!
This ignorant little kid posing as a "journalist" then informed everyone that the conference was sponsored by a "neo-Confederate" group and that Ron Paul speaks to "the neo-Confederate community," whatever that is, "in code language. (I knew that Ron was in touch with the Martian community, and with the residents of the planet Remulak, home of the supposedly "fictional" Coneheads of Saturday Night Live fame, but not the "Neo-Confederate Community" as well).
Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed the Institute's programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would know. The PFY did not bother because he is only interested in slandering Ron Paul, not in being a serious journalist.
My paper was about the Northern secessionist tradition prior to the War between the States, including the Hartford, Ct. secession convention of 1814, and the secession movements of the mid-Atlantic states that existed prior to the war (see the book, The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William Wright). The famous abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was a Northern secessionist whose credo was "No Covenant with Death," the "covenant" being the U.S. Constitition, and "death" being slavery. Other papers had to do with the Quebec secession movement, European secession movements, federalism in general, how the U.S. was created by a war of secession from the British empire, and even "How to Secede in Business" by substituting arbitration for litigation.
But don't take my word for it. The proceedings of the conference, which the PFY is obviously ignorant of, were published as a book: Secession, State and Liberty, edited by Dr. David Gordon, whose Ph.D. from UCLA is in the field of intellectual history. It includes essays by scholars and professors from Emory University, Florida State University, UNLV, University of Montreal, University of South Carolina, and even a lawyer from Buffalo, New York. It was published a few years after the Soviet empire imploded as the result of eleven separate acts of peaceful secession, which made it especially relevant to social scientists.
In fact, secession remains a lively topic of academic discourse, something that the PFY is obviously unfamiliar with. A few weeks ago a secession conference sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities was held in Chrleston, South Carolina, featuring some thirty historians and legal scholars. In little Jamie Kirchick's empty mind, the NEH must necessarily be a hotbed of pro-slavery sentiment. (A friend in academe tells me that the participants in this conference spanned the ideological spectrum from left/liberal to Marxist).
Only an ignorant conspiracy theorist like Jamie Kirchick would assume that anyone who studies secession in a scholarly way is necessarily some kind of KKK-sympathizing kook. He knows that Ron Paul will not sue him for defamation because he is a public figure. I, however, am not a public figure.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018 ...
And a little more on this scum
Jamie Kirchick: "I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical"
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kir ...
Reason talked with Paul about this:
Ron Paul: All it is--it's old stuff. It's all been rehashed. It's all political stuff.
reason: Why don't you release all the old letters?
Paul: I don't even have copies of them, because it's ancient history.
reason: Do you stand by what appears in the letters? Did you write these...?
Paul: No. I've discussed all of that in the past. It's just old news.
reason: Did the New Republic talk to you before they ran it?
Paul: No, I never talked to them.
reason: What do you think of Martin Luther King?
Paul: Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they're willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws. So I believe in civil disobedience if you understand the consequences. Martin Luther King was a great person because he did that and he changed America for the better because of that.
reason: You didn't write the derogatory things about him in the letter?
Paul: No.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124281.html
"Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans – has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.
These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.
The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian."
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...- ChaosMotor, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2And a great big THANK YOU for that.
- d1rtfarm, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Um, those quotes are from 20 years worth of Ron Paul's newsletters. You would think that after a while, Ron Paul would put the smack down if that newsletter didn't match his beliefs.
- BabyWookie, on 01/09/2008, -5/+7Grand Wizard Paul is currently projected to be in 5th place in NH, right behind Rudy. Eat it!
- sl9sl9, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2If RP didn't write these newsletterS (note the "S" there - plural), then why wasn't the person that did write them fired immediately from RP's staff?
Not only was this alleged person not fired, but they were allowed to continue producing lots more newsletters containing bigoted views on jews, blacks, gays etc as well as praise for Ku Klux Klan "wizards" and god knows what else.
I'm surprised he got so much support from Diggers, considering his views on guns, abortion, and even worse his support for homeopaths, scientologists, herbalists, and all manner of other fraud and unscientific quackery (he calls this policy "health freedom", but it's actually just plain old fashioned fraud).
Angry old white man indeed!
- SwingCorey, on 01/08/2008, -50/+55No. "Smear" is when allegations are made using mere suspicion or innuendo. (As in Hillary's tactics claiming she has dirt on Obama's drug use, but is claiming to keep the campaign clean.)
- sjl127, on 01/08/2008, -59/+102And the media machine steamroller is on the move over Paul - Paul must be doing something right to have such a hit piece placed now.
- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -27/+22The problem here is how much wrong he's done with nothing to show for it.
- BenMuldowney74, on 01/08/2008, -9/+4i just want to warn the Ron bots not to click on the google ads on the new republics site. that would be click fraud and would get the new republics google adsense account pulled. DO NOT CLICK ON THE GOOGLE ADS. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO SHOW THE NEW REPUBLIC that you disagree with them.
- heypetray, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3You're retarded.
- arbulus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4what the hell are you even talking about?
- BenMuldowney74, on 01/08/2008, -9/+4i just want to warn the Ron bots not to click on the google ads on the new republics site. that would be click fraud and would get the new republics google adsense account pulled. DO NOT CLICK ON THE GOOGLE ADS. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO SHOW THE NEW REPUBLIC that you disagree with them.
- stevetrojanman, on 01/08/2008, -30/+10Lol...conspiracy theorists such as yourself can now exit stage left to the lib party...you don't belong on the conservative side...
- sjl127, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4I'm republican and voted for W - TWICE. Hoodwinked? Yup.
- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -11/+15"Lol...conspiracy theorists such as yourself can now exit stage left to the lib party...you don't belong on the conservative side..."
I used to think as you, but realized that they are the mainstream, not the fringe. Come to the dark side where there's not just libertarianism and THE SOCIALIST MENACE. It's much sunnier here :) - ZenFountain, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6Ever wondered how these negative Paul articles get turned around?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?s=8207 ...
When I dugg the article this guy was at -30, now he's up to +30. Way to go ronpaulforums.com, you still lose! 10% reporting in NH and Ron's at 8%, viva la...oh *****.- spinchange, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Anyone get a screen capture?? I'm late to this story (it was buried, obviously) This thread that you linked to is gone. Tracks evidently covered.
- sjl127, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS23 ...
- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -27/+22The problem here is how much wrong he's done with nothing to show for it.
- czernel, on 01/08/2008, -59/+97Ron Paul is an honorable statesman. Go watch 10 or 20 of his speeches on YouTube. I would be proud to have him represent America. As a Republican with a Libertarian outlook, he is always trying to remove gender and racial classifications - his viewpoints are about as anti-racist as you can get.
Vote Ron Paul 2008!- obelisky, on 01/08/2008, -27/+41did you even read the article? you didn't read the article.
- TheMahdi, on 01/08/2008, -23/+29he didn't read the article
- stevetrojanman, on 01/08/2008, -18/+23Damn right he didn't read it.
- avengingturnip, on 01/08/2008, -23/+20Neither did you, at least not the articles that were being characterized in this political hit piece. Cherry picking a few quotes out of context and stringing them together is something that can be done about almost anyone. The neocon smearbund is still at it is all that is clear.
- DooM, on 01/08/2008, -17/+24Ok, so give me even some MADE UP context that makes any of the below direct quotes any less damning - I can't even think about voting for someone who would call civil rights "forced integration":
“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”
“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
Martin Luther King is "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after MLK, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives.- wheany, on 01/08/2008, -8/+7Hmm, "If I was totally crazy, I would seriously say stuff like [quote] , but since I am sane, I do not say nor condone such things"
- avengingturnip, on 01/08/2008, -7/+9First provide the articles in which they were written and show that the writing style is anything like Dr. Paul's. If you have questions about MLK being a communist sympathizer however you ought to check the FBI file on him, because he did surround himself with known communists. If you don't think that smear should stick then lay off Ron Paul because you have far less on him then the FBI had on MLK.
- kfed2, on 01/08/2008, -5/+7 avengingturnip - they would rather be anti Ron Paul than right. I am sure you have better things to do than watch these people desperately cling to the 1 piece of "dirt" that can be loosely connected to Ron Paul.
- KMye, on 01/09/2008, -3/+6@wheany - The articles are all linked in the above submitted article. So, the articles were published in a newsletter bearing Ron Paul's name, and presented as if it were him writing, including personal 1st-person references, and the burden of proof is on us analyze his writing style and "prove" they're the same? Anyway, your entire point is moot; if I'm disagreeing with someone else's point in an academic setting, I certainly don't lace my rebuttal with as much open disdain and occasional swearing as I do sometimes here on digg. Writing style and content can vary dramatically based on the audience you're addressing.
- DooM, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3Kfed, this is more than a small piece of 'dirt'. And I'm not Anti-Ron Paul - I've contributed cash to his campaign, I own a rEVOLution t-shirt, for crying out loud. But I can't in good conscience recommend a man who allowed this kind of crap to be printed in his name for that many years. Tell me how this is just a 'minor' thing again..? I'd love to believe it.
- kfed2, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1Doom: A 20 year old oversight is a minor issue. Paul does not conceal his opinions, and this is 100 inconsistent with his writing style and all other positions, i.e.collectivism.
KMye: "and presented as if it were him writing" AS IF - key phrase. - DooM, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5@KFed: Some of these are from '95 and '96 - 20 years is just how long it went on. Apart from this, I've seen no evidence that Dr. Paul holds these opinions himself - altho, to be fair, the only evidence that he holds CONTRARY opinions all post-dates this coming out around his re-election campaign, unless you have evidence to the contrary pre-dating that..?
At any rate, profiting from and encouraging that crap is no less sickening. - kfed2, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1OK DooM - so why do they endorse (aka allow their commercials to be shown) candidates in opposing parties, with opposing views? What about the government endorsing everything that comes over the airwaves,since the govt ultimately controls the airwaves.
I will concede that I now see this as a matter of opinion. - KMye, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Sorry wheany, my comment above was supposed to be @avengingturnip...
- DooM, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2@Kfed: Because there is nothing patently offensive about ALTERNATIVE opinions about a subject. There is something VERY offensive about racism. It's not hard to figure this out.
- kfed2, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1Doom, Yes, racism is offensive to me and just about every other American. Still, Racism is a matter of opinion. "Endorsement" implies that you support that particular viewpoint, which TV stations do not do to everything on their channel, advertising or not.
Ron Paul allowed an opinion to be expressed. As president, he would not try to silence any opinions, no matter what percentage of the population found them offensive - this is necessary in a free society. Think how offensive it was to say that King George did not really have a divine right to rule over the residents of the 13 colonies (only a small percentage of the colonists actually supported the Declaration of Independence, I think it was 20%)?
Every opinion is offensive to somebody, but none the less valid. Conveying an opinion does not mean you endorse it. An endorsement is what Pat Roberts did for Rudy Giuliani. If Pat Roberts explained Giuliani's opinions, it would not be an endorsement. Look at all the opinions digg.com would be endorsing!
PS - this is a good post, I think I will put it somewhere else too. - DooM, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2A couple of things - there is a very big difference between, say, Fox News allowing Hillary Clinton to spout her liberal views on their network and a page that is headlined "Ron Paul Political Alerts" followed by a first-person account. The analogy would only hold if Fox News put up a lower third over Hillary saying "Fox News' Hillary Clinton" and I think in both cases you could then say there is a tacit endorsement of what was being communicated.
Second, you state: "Every opinion is offensive to somebody, but none the less valid. " And I have to disagree that all opinions are valid. There are opinions that are INVALID or wrong. e.g., the moon landings were faked, the world is flat, etc. True enough that you have the right to hold an invalid opinion, but it doesn't make you right or sensible.
Peace.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -12/+20Great! You got the first part down...now you have to prove that Ron Paul actually wrote it!
Yeah! You do!
Because the owner of a periodical isn't held to the beliefs of their op-ed article writers, are they? Whenever there is controversy the writer is always fired...not the owners of the newspaper.- canewediggit, on 01/08/2008, -15/+20card51short is a pedophile illegal immigrant racist with al-qaeda ties and a penchant for violence towards women.
signed,
canewediggit.
hey, who wrote that?! wasn't me, i swear, it was one of my interns. his name? uh, you can't have it. but trust me, it definitely wasn't me and i never this comment until it was too late. - DooM, on 01/08/2008, -13/+18They do if their name is on the friggin' thing - if the name of the newsletter is "Ron Paul's blah blah blah" and this type of content appears for years and years then it is moot if he actually wrote it or just endorsed the viewpoint.
One or two incidents you could claim "Hey, I'm a busy man - I can't read EVERYthing that goes out in my newsletter" and I'd be willing to buy it, but this is a MOUNTAIN of filth over YEARS with no action by the man. AND I CONTRIBUTED TO HIS CAMPAIGN for crying out loud. - KMye, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6That he published a short newsletter for years under his name, apparently by ghostwriters writing as if they were Paul, even including references to his wife and family, and NEVER read or edited it defies common sense. How can you possibly believe that? Oh, hi, it's you card, never mind... ;)
- canewediggit, on 01/08/2008, -15/+20card51short is a pedophile illegal immigrant racist with al-qaeda ties and a penchant for violence towards women.
- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -13/+24Anyone who allows their name to go on ANYTHING they fully endorse. Do you understand that. HE BACKED THE NEWSLETTERS! HE IS RESPONSIBLE...THINK!
The newsletter went out for decades probably and Ron Paul did not print a retraction on any article...or they would be saying so. The articles having gone out for so long under his ADMINISTRATION and MANAGEMENT using RON PAUL'S OWN NAME damn the damn fool. Now take your scared whiney voiced old piece of ***** back home with you...and do what you want with him. He is not going to be elected president of the United States of America and running the racist as a Republican is disrespectful to the Republican party and the United States of America!- avengingturnip, on 01/08/2008, -8/+14This is yellow journalism. The link to it has already been taken down from the Drudge Report. Think about that. Even Matt Drudge will not associate himself with this garbage story.
- 14justice, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1If you're so sure Ron Paul won't be elected, why bother yourself to comment about it? And such unnecessary name calling... what's really going on with you?
- DooM, on 01/08/2008, -17/+24Ok, so give me even some MADE UP context that makes any of the below direct quotes any less damning - I can't even think about voting for someone who would call civil rights "forced integration":
- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -19/+17Read a little:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397 ...
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
- jdibiase, on 01/08/2008, -21/+18Just read the article. A couple of quotes ...
"As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'""
"Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.")" - deadsilver, on 01/10/2008, -0/+0you didnt read the article
- obelisky, on 01/08/2008, -27/+41did you even read the article? you didn't read the article.
- Meursault, on 01/08/2008, -58/+65If true, this is very disappointing.
- TyroPyro, on 01/08/2008, -34/+22It is true
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php - card51short, on 01/08/2008, -20/+22it's true...haven't you seen all the mainstream media picking up on the story? Didn't you see Ron Paul drop out in shame?
Oh, right...that won't ever happen.
This anything like the restaurant ordeal a few weeks back that was supposed to bring RP down?
Haha keep trying, super sleuths ;) - kamel, on 01/08/2008, -26/+24Looks like it is true as the PaulBots are trying their hardest to make sure it doesn't reach the front page. 128 diggs in two hours and no FP yet.
- BenMuldowney74, on 01/08/2008, -11/+4i just want to warn the Ron bots not to click on the google ads on the new republics site. that would be click fraud and would get the new republics google adsense account pulled. DO NOT CLICK ON THE GOOGLE ADS. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO SHOW THE NEW REPUBLIC that you disagree with them.
- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -26/+21The Ron Paul Bury Brigade is the most efficient bury brigade you'll ever see. They bury everything that they consider even slightly critical of Ron Paul within minutes of it's posting.
- metapop, on 01/08/2008, -11/+14sounds like there's a hint of admiration in that comment, herk. i know you've been quite active for the forces of evil lately, but we forgive and are willing to accept you if you choose to use your powers for good.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -6/+10why thank you, herk...you could do it, too if you put your mind to it!
- faxxy, on 01/08/2008, -15/+33What racist would call Rosa Parks a hero and uphold the Constitution for her by offering to pay with his OWN money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so
This is an old news story. Here's the campaign's response just today:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron- ...- myuu, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2A furtive, racist politician seeking reelection?
- jefferygomer, on 01/08/2008, -15/+29According to Paul, it's not true.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_di ...
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron- ...- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -21/+14The allegations in the article are all true, citations from Ron Paul's newsletters back up every single point.
- akula89, on 01/08/2008, -13/+20they were not written by Ron Paul, he does not support what was written, and he takes responsibility for what was written under his name. stop making something out of nothing.
- Hortnon, on 01/08/2008, -17/+13Prove he didn't write them. Him saying he didn't isn't good enough, by the way.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -7/+21you are the ones inventing the conspiracy...you prove he wrote them. Saying he did isn't good enough, by the way.
- jefferygomer, on 01/08/2008, -7/+10What would be good enough proof for you that he didn't write them?
The ones making the accusations are the ones that have the burden of proof. Otherwise you get this ***** stuff of, "Bananas are dead spiders. Prove me wrong." - kfed2, on 01/08/2008, -7/+7The burden of proof is on the accuser. Prove he meant what he "said." If you cannot do that, you arguments are baseless.
- Hortnon, on 01/09/2008, -2/+7I'll tell you what would convince me. The writers that actually made the comments coming forward and admitting they did it.
- card51short, on 01/09/2008, -3/+4"I'll tell you what would convince me. The writers that actually made the comments coming forward and admitting they did it."
So Ron Paul is supposed to track down the original writers of the article 20 years after the fact? If Ron Paul didn't write it or authorize it, how would he know who wrote it? How would he track them down now? How do we know the person that did write it would admit it?
So you think Ron Paul has to go do all this stuff to clear his name, right?
At the same time you think it is OK that Bush and Cheney didn't testify under oath or answer 70% of the family member's questions?
Why is it that you hold Ron Paul to such standards involving a hare brained conspiracy theory and yet you don't see anything wrong with the president ignoring the questions of the 911 victim's family members. In fact, you laugh at us for saying there is something wrong there.
So what is it...should Paul have to defend himself from outrageous conspiracy theories?
If so, why is Bush and Cheney exempt from a much larger scale scandal? - Hortnon, on 01/09/2008, -3/+7"At the same time you think it is OK that Bush and Cheney didn't testify under oath or answer 70% of the family member's questions?"
Find where I said that, you liar. Right now. If you ever expect me to respond to you ever again, find where I said that. I'll be waiting. - Hortnon, on 01/09/2008, -3/+6What, no response, card? Having some trouble finding it?
- card51short, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3"Find where I said that, you liar. Right now. If you ever expect me to respond to you ever again, find where I said that. I'll be waiting."
Sir, you have accepted the 9/11 Commission's investigation. The Commission didn't make Bush and Cheney testify under oath.
Where is your outrage about them not answering tough questions?
You want Paul to answer your conspiracy theories, right? - Hortnon, on 01/09/2008, -4/+3Again, find where this all happened.
- card51short, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3Oh my god, Horty! Do you mean you don't believe the 9/11 Commission report?
You're not with Al Qaeda, are you?
Seriously, though, so you believe the investigation was compromised since they didn't get 70% of the answers from the 2 most powerful people in the country? - Hortnon, on 01/09/2008, -4/+3So, you can't prove it either way?
I'm done with you. - card51short, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2horty...ok you proved me wrong...you never said that I was totally wrong. I admit it.
Now...do you believe they recovered a pristine condition red bandanna in Shanksville and a slightly singed passport in the WTC?
- akula89, on 01/08/2008, -13/+20they were not written by Ron Paul, he does not support what was written, and he takes responsibility for what was written under his name. stop making something out of nothing.
- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -21/+14The allegations in the article are all true, citations from Ron Paul's newsletters back up every single point.
- UtubReptilian, on 01/08/2008, -4/+5You tell me. How come there are so many people protecting the real criminals involved with CIA's Project Mockingbird. This CIA, media, and "frontrunners" partnership seems to be paying off so far as 81% of the New Hampshire votes are still being counted by computers. The NH Republican GOP official site has already included McCain won even before one vote was cast. Over 20,000 Iowa Caucus Ron Paul voters are very dissapointed that at least half of their votes were not counted. Now, you have to wonder why Hillary doesn't get exposed by the majority. Make her past records public, she is supposed to be a public official, k! http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_is_ ...
- rizzo2008, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...
- TyroPyro, on 01/08/2008, -34/+22It is true
- meltlight, on 01/08/2008, -72/+62Ron Paul's bigoted newsletters are fair game. The blind faith of his supporters is sickening.
Reminds me of supporters of another Texas buffoon...- whalefarmerjohn, on 01/08/2008, -28/+31Completely agree, for as objective and logic based as his supporters claim to be, they have too much blind faith in this man,
- BenMuldowney74, on 01/08/2008, -10/+2i just want to warn the Ron bots not to click on the google ads on the new republics site. that would be click fraud and would get the new republics google adsense account pulled. DO NOT CLICK ON THE GOOGLE ADS. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO SHOW THE NEW REPUBLIC that you disagree with them.
- spinchange, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Blind faith...in anyone... is quite un-libertarian, no?
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -15/+16teehee using 20 year old newsletters that was written by a staffer on his newsletter is all you guys got? Cmon now...guiliani hired coke dealers and child molesters and this is all you have?
I have a feeling it's going to make a huge impact on the politicsphere. Either that, or be fodder for more of Digg's Denial Brigade's tin foil hat conspiracies ;)
So guys when do you think Ron Paul is going to bring back slavery and nazi death camps? hahahahaha hilarious- obelisky, on 01/08/2008, -14/+12so do you use this same alias at stormfront.com?
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -17/+17Even if, over decades of publication, none of the racist articles in newsletters bearing Ron Paul's name were actually written by Ron Paul .... *even if* that's the case, at some point you would think he would take some responsibility and stop putting out racist newsletters bearing his name. He certainly had enough time to it; these newsletters were published for decades.
- evandi, on 01/08/2008, -12/+11It didn't happen over decades of publication you ***** moron.
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -9/+13The newsletters have been published since at least 1978. The articles cited by The New Republican also date back to the 70s. Do the math.
- kfed2, on 01/08/2008, -5/+8He did take responsibility.
- evandi, on 01/08/2008, -12/+11It didn't happen over decades of publication you ***** moron.
- Neiby, on 01/08/2008, -10/+16I don't think Paul supports blindly follow him. I think they follow him because they made rational decisions to do so. Many of those same followers will analyze this information the same way we do with any other information and then make decisions based on it. If these quotes actually came from Ron Paul then he would lose my support. If these quotes appeared in his newsletters but were authored by others then I would like to know more about their context. It may be a bit of a stretch, but there may be some reason those comments were left in those newsletters.
I support Ron Paul, but I am not blind. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -13/+16" If these quotes actually came from Ron Paul then he would lose my support."
What about those quotes coming from others, but with Ron Paul's knowledge, support, and approval? What then?- evandi, on 01/08/2008, -10/+12It wasn't with his knowledge support or approval. You ***** libelous scab.
- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -10/+14Nope, he talked at length about how proud of his newsletter he was.
- jefferygomer, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Chaosium, and link or source?
- jefferygomer, on 01/08/2008, -8/+12Let's stop dealing with "what abouts and what ifs":
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron- ...
- evandi, on 01/08/2008, -10/+12It wasn't with his knowledge support or approval. You ***** libelous scab.
- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -8/+15I would like to see the quotes in their original context, too, but getting your hands on these news letters is very difficult and Ron Paul has refused to make them public. Let's hope that someone can scan copies of the originals and post them on the web so we can all read and decide.
- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -6/+11The original sources are going to be leaked, if they haven't already.
- rationalist, on 01/09/2008, -0/+10Did you even read the article? PDFs of the scanned original newletters from the 1990's are included in the page linked in the sidebar, available for the first time.
They are actually more damning than the transcripts that were all that were previously available. As has been elsewhere noted, "For example, while the transcripts quoted "In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert...". The original actually reads "In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says my coin expert Burt Blumert...". This first-person passage clearly casts Paul, at the time a coin and bullion dealer himself, as the author of the piece."
- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -13/+16" If these quotes actually came from Ron Paul then he would lose my support."
- StormCommander, on 01/08/2008, -5/+5have you even attempted to look into this yourself? try using common sense
- notque, on 01/08/2008, -3/+8Yes, and I read some really racist stuff on the ones I found.
- amy31415, on 01/08/2008, -12/+6Nope. I don't blindly follow Ron Paul. I don't like a couple of his stances on things. But he's the only honest one in this race, he's the only one who isn't corrupted by the system.
You want war forever, corrupt government and massive tax hikes? Great, you're free to vote for anybody you like. And justify it with some inane hit piece from 20+ years ago, or you could read what he's written on racism and collectivism, economics and peace and learn something.
I'm really tired and disgusted with people who can't look at another candidate and see through the BS that the press puts out there. I used to respect McCain until I studied him closer. I liked Obama at first too. Now, after looking at and studying all the candidates, I only like Bill Richardson and Ron Paul. Ron Paul gets my vote due to his necessary fiscal conservatism. It's what's best for this country, not just for me. Not for some group, but for EVERYBODY. If I wanted only what was best for me then I'd vote for the person most likely to dump money into my industry: pharmaceuticals (Hillary on the dem side, Romney on the Repub side). But I won't because I have the clarity of mind and ability to reason that that's not best for this country, even if it's best for my pocketbook.
What good is a pile of money if it's worthless and your country is in shambles and hated by the rest of the world?- chrissandvick, on 01/09/2008, -2/+5He's so honest he published a newsletter purportedly written by him but later he's claiming was ghostwritten. He's either a liar now or a liar then. Take your pick.
- Spectre74, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1Not a ghost. He claims to know EXACTLY who did it, and I think the person is still in association with him.
- Spectre74, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1*correction---he knows exactly who didn't do it.
- Spectre74, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1Not a ghost. He claims to know EXACTLY who did it, and I think the person is still in association with him.
- chrissandvick, on 01/09/2008, -2/+5He's so honest he published a newsletter purportedly written by him but later he's claiming was ghostwritten. He's either a liar now or a liar then. Take your pick.
- kfed2, on 01/08/2008, -6/+8It is hard to be a blind Ron Paul follower because his positions require some research i.e. supporting the gold standard. Most of his supporters are among the more well informed, which is why they are so enthusiastic.
- chaosium, on 01/09/2008, -3/+4"his positions require some research i.e. supporting the gold standard. Most of his supporters are among the more well informed"
Brother, are you dumb.
- chaosium, on 01/09/2008, -3/+4"his positions require some research i.e. supporting the gold standard. Most of his supporters are among the more well informed"
- whalefarmerjohn, on 01/08/2008, -28/+31Completely agree, for as objective and logic based as his supporters claim to be, they have too much blind faith in this man,
- ChazHollywood, on 01/08/2008, -22/+56It would be nice if we could see copies of these things so we can read them in their original context and confirm their existence. If these newsletters prove to be real, and they say what this article says they do then no doubt Paul's campaign would deny that he had anything to do with it. But it would still raise suspicion for me considering they are HIS newsletters. So can we get our hands on these or what?
- TheMahdi, on 01/08/2008, -10/+11they should be on there somewhere
- TyroPyro, on 01/08/2008, -11/+32Sure, here is one to get you started: http://www.mediafire.com/?9iyp4x52kgn
- ChazHollywood, on 01/08/2008, -7/+14Cool, thanks!
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -11/+10does it come with a tin foil hat?
- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -9/+10Naw, could I borrow one of yours?
- ChazHollywood, on 01/08/2008, -6/+12This article contains the copies I was hoping to find:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161 ...
- Quick2822, on 01/08/2008, -43/+61This is nothing new. They just expanded on those newsletters that have already been discredited over and over again. When this guy was on MSNBC last night I thought he'd have a huge list of articles, pictures, citations, page numbers, etc, etc.. the only "evidence" he has is that Ron Paul's name was on the newsletter. The best part is that one of the articles that actually had a name on it wasn't even Ron Paul's name.
You almost had us, but when you went on about how Ron Paul uses subliminal messages in his speeches to talk to his neo-nazi friends, I started folding up one of these nice Ron Paul tinhats that we all wear and sent it to you.
Here, here is proof that those newsletters were not written by Ron Paul: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...- TheMahdi, on 01/08/2008, -19/+9http://daviddukeforgrandwizard.com
- ssn697, on 01/08/2008, -15/+33"Here, here is proof that those newsletters were not written by Ron Paul:"
Uh, WHERE is the proof? Ron Paul saying he didn't write them is now PROOF? An unknown person, not named, is PROOF? The excuse thta this was a "big operation, and Ron Paul was a busy man" is PROOF?
I don't think you understand the term "PROOF". How about we get an explanation about how one of Ron Paul's closest friends is quoted? Was that by accident? Made up? How about the supposed "ghost writers" name? The date he was fired? You know, some actual PROOF?- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -17/+8yeah, ssn you show him!!!
Proof is something like having a picture of Ron Paul with a Storm Front member. Oh wait....you're saying that was at a public signing event and he had no idea who they were? Oh OK never mind that...
Proof is something like uncovering the fact that the evil, sinister Dr. Paul was actually eating at a restaurant that a StormFront member once ate at! Wait...are you saying that totally fell through, too? Hmmm...well OK let me try again.
PROOF is having a newsletter written 20 years ago with many different contributers and having one write an op-ed column about their racist feelings on blacks.
Although we cannot prove that Ron Paul did or did not write it...we all can easily see that this would hold up in a court of law and that Ron Paul is indeed a racist bigot planning on bringing back slavery and taking over the world.
Thank God the Denial Brigade was able to discover his vile motive and expose him for the world to see...LOL
Try again boys! This time with actual proof ;) - EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -10/+12As for PROOF that Ron Paul did not write or endorse any of the writings we need to see a lawsuit filed on behalf of Ron Paul for misappropriation of his name...OTHERWISE HE FULLY ENDORSED his name being used for the statements made.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -11/+9we don't need to see anything.
That's like us "conspiracy theorists" saying that Bush needs to sit down and address all of our theories about 9/11 or he is in on the crime. You guys laugh at that, don't you?
He's already said he didn't write it. If you have proof he did please share it and I will not be a RP supporter.
Go away. - kfed2, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2Desperation. Everybody knows that an endorsement is a signature. (sarcasm) There is 1 word for signature, and 1 word for endorsement, and they do not have the same definition.
- WhoWhatWhereWhy, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Card51short, what other proof do you need, seeing as how the newsletter bears his name AND his signature, the membership was managed by a guy who now runs Ron Paul's campaign in Texas, the fact that Ron Paul defended the letters for years before deciding to blame them on a "ghost writer", etc?
Frankly the burden of proof has shifted here, man. It's pretty ***** clear that Ron Paul is either a) responsible for the letters, or b) really incredibly stupid for letting this go on for 2+ decades without realizing it. There is no getting around it, and by being purposefully obtuse about it you are making yourself look stupid.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -11/+9we don't need to see anything.
- rizzo2008, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1no if we judge candidates guilty by association than Hillary should have been out of the race long before Paul
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -17/+8yeah, ssn you show him!!!
- rogerdonaldson, on 01/08/2008, -35/+39If this is true, then never mind the "neocon hit piece" angle -- we are always better off for having the WHOLE story on any candidate regarding their stated beliefs. Their private life is one thing, but a newsletter, that's fair game.
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -8/+18Of course it's real -- it's long been known that Ron Paul published newsletters under his name and that they contained racist writing. His Democratic opponent in 1996 brought up the issue. Here's some scans from TNR: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161 ...
- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -4/+12Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle
www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1366357
AUSTIN - Democratic congressional candidate Charles ""Lefty" Morris on Wednesday criticized Republican opponent Ron Paul for endorsing a group that wants to end all government funding of education and repeal compulsory school attendance laws.
Morris said such an ""extreme" view would doom most children to a lifetime of digging ditches.
Paul defended his endorsement of the Separation of School & State Alliance, a nonprofit organization founded about two years ago by a former private school principal in California.
The Republican nominee said he supported the group because it sought more parental involvement in education to counter deteriorating public schools. He dismissed the organization's more far-reaching goals, including repeal of laws requiring children to attend school, as only ""theoretical" targets.
---------------------------------------
Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle
www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1367745
AUSTIN - Democrat Charles ""Lefty" Morris on Wednesday said Republican Ron Paul is unfit to serve in Congress because he has advised supporters on how to move their money to foreign bank accounts and buy passports from countries like Peru....
Morris based his accusations on two Paul publications: The Ron Paul Survival Report and the Forfeiture Alert.
In the first, Paul noted U.S. citizens can buy Peruvian passports for $25,000, which would enable them to conceal their true citizenship while traveling abroad.
In the Forfeiture Alert, Paul predicted a major economic catastrophe and promoted the purchase of a book that would tell citizens how to move money out of the country, buy gold without leaving a paper trail for the Internal Revenue Service to follow and how to use ""mail drops" to ensure correspondence privacy.
Though Morris said he knew of no criminal wrong-doing by Paul, Morris said these view are ""extremist" and out of the ""mainstream" of political thought in Texas. Morris, a lawyer, said he has never advised clients on how to protect their assets or fought a forfeiture or tax lien.
Paul said the advice on a second passport was for U.S. citizens who travel abroad and might become victims of terrorists. He said they would be much more likely to survive if they could give the terrorist a foreign passport rather than having to admit to being U.S. citizens.
---------------------------------------
Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle
www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1333935
WEST COLUMBIA - Gov. George W. Bush campaigned for U.S. Rep. Greg Laughlin, the Democrat turned Republican, in the congressman's hometown Thursday and told a crowd at the American Legion hall ""there is no room for isolationism in the United States."
The reference was a swipe at Ron Paul, Laughlin's runoff opponent and a critic of U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91.
---------------------------------------
Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle
www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1333408
AUSTIN - Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese came to Texas Monday to encourage Ronald Reagan Republicans to choose a former Democrat, U.S. Rep. Greg Laughlin, over former Libertarian Ron Paul in the 14th Congressional District runoff.
Laughlin sought Meese's help in countering Paul's effort to revive his own ties to Reagan supporters, which were damaged when Paul left the Republican Party in 1988 to become the Libertarian nominee for president.
Meese, a longtime friend and adviser to Reagan, said Paul's recent statements ""just don't jibe with" his earlier criticisms of the former president.
""He has castigated President Reagan while the president was in office and has made some very unfortunate statements," Meese said. ""It seems very inappropriate then to try to disguise himself by hiding under the Reagan mantle while running now in this district."
- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -4/+12Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle
- faxxy, on 01/08/2008, -12/+14What racist would call Rosa Parks a hero and uphold the Constitution for her by offering to pay with his OWN money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so
This is an old news story. Here's the campaign's response just today:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron- ...- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -7/+14That statement from the campaign is the moral equivalent of Ron Paul putting his hands over his ears and screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over again. Either Ron Paul is a racist and a homophobe and a liar or he's such a lousy administrator and enormous fool that he didn't bother for years to even look at what was being published under his name and in a manner that was designed to make the reader believe that Ron Paul wrote it himself. Which one is it, Ronbot?
- BenMuldowney74, on 01/09/2008, -5/+2i just want to warn the Ron bots not to click on the google ads on the new republics site. that would be click fraud and would get the new republics google adsense account pulled. DO NOT CLICK ON THE GOOGLE ADS. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO SHOW THE NEW REPUBLIC that you disagree with them.
- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -7/+14That statement from the campaign is the moral equivalent of Ron Paul putting his hands over his ears and screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over again. Either Ron Paul is a racist and a homophobe and a liar or he's such a lousy administrator and enormous fool that he didn't bother for years to even look at what was being published under his name and in a manner that was designed to make the reader believe that Ron Paul wrote it himself. Which one is it, Ronbot?
- rizzo2008, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -8/+18Of course it's real -- it's long been known that Ron Paul published newsletters under his name and that they contained racist writing. His Democratic opponent in 1996 brought up the issue. Here's some scans from TNR: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161 ...
- obelisky, on 01/08/2008, -33/+7goon rush btw
- KingRhymes, on 01/08/2008, -40/+49These have already come out and Paul has denied he even knew about them. He has already said they were written by a ghostwriter and has denounced what was said in these articles. Nice try MSM.
- Minarchian, on 01/08/2008, -29/+8This neo-con web site is not MSM.
Fringe is what it is.- FritzKatz, on 01/08/2008, -6/+21The New Republic is a LEFT/LIBERAL site. Usually the smear term 'neo-con' is reserved for conservatives.
- ScornedPatriot, on 01/08/2008, -4/+3There are neo-cons on BOTH sides of the isle, In about equal proportion it seems.
- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -3/+8Unless you're Minarchian and use it as a catch-all insult to use on anyone who speaks out against St. Paul. I'm surprised he's not calling them heretics.
- FritzKatz, on 01/08/2008, -6/+21The New Republic is a LEFT/LIBERAL site. Usually the smear term 'neo-con' is reserved for conservatives.
- TheMahdi, on 01/08/2008, -13/+11Well if Dr. Congressman Mr. Paul says its so, its gotta be!
- obelisky, on 01/08/2008, -19/+33so he can't be bothered to pay attention to a newsletter that was sent out for YEARS AND YEARS under his freakin name, but hey, let's elect him president of the most powerful nation on earth.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -10/+10"sir what do you think you have to be president of the US"
"Well, I have been a congressman for 20 years, a flight surgeon in the war, delivered thousands of babies, have a great voting record and..."
"Yeah, yeah, yeah we know about all that crap...but how good can you edit a newsletter?"
Seriously this is all you guys can digg up on Paul? You spend your days trashing ron paul and this is it?
Thank god he has no skeletons in his closet. Sucks for you guys, though!- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -8/+9As for PROOF that Ron Paul did not write or endorse any of the writings we need to see a lawsuit filed on behalf of Ron Paul for misappropriation of his name...OTHERWISE HE FULLY ENDORSED his name being used for the statements made.
- kfed2, on 01/09/2008, -4/+3Suing is always the answer. Please do us all a favor and stop posting the same thing over and over. Look up "endorsement" when you are finished spamming digg.
- obelisky, on 01/08/2008, -6/+9i don't even think you believe what you type anymore, its just all reflex at this point..
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -10/+5i can't believe they let Nixon be president. He was a horrible grammar and spell checker...
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -8/+13Even if Ron Paul did not write even a single one of the racist articles published over decades in these newsletters, don't you think that at some point he might have taken a look at his own newsletter and put a stop to this? The fact that he published his newsletters for decades, filled all along with disgusting, racist articles raises some serious questions about his integrity, reasoning, and just how honest he is being about his views.
- evandi, on 01/08/2008, -8/+6It did not contain racist quotes for decades.
- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -8/+9As for PROOF that Ron Paul did not write or endorse any of the writings we need to see a lawsuit filed on behalf of Ron Paul for misappropriation of his name...OTHERWISE HE FULLY ENDORSED his name being used for the statements made.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -10/+10"sir what do you think you have to be president of the US"
- brokenlibrarian, on 01/08/2008, -15/+30Ron Paul has been aware of these racist comments since at least 1996. At that time he did not "denounce" them, he said they were based on "current events and statistical reports of the time". If he denounced them, he did it later, and he has never named the ghostwriter. (It's not Lew Rockwell, who left Ron Paul's staff in 1982.)
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1 ... - chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -14/+35"Paul has denied he even knew about them"
Stop lying. Paul never ever said that. - jdibiase, on 01/08/2008, -9/+15He never knew about them? Nice way to abandon responsibility for something going out with his name at the top! I don't think it would be too much to assume that he was involved in the decision to name the newsletters after himself, and let the articles go out without a byline. Whether these are his opinions or not, this whole scenario demonstrates a lack of control, managerial skills, and responsibility.
What would he say were he president? ... "I didn't know that press release was issued from the White House press office. I never knew about it, it was written by someone else." - RonLawl, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5So on one hand you guys want to claim that Ron Paul never knew about this, and on the other hand, you want to claim that the ghost writer was fired for the comments. Which is it? How can Ron Paul fire someone over something that he is blissfully unaware of? Does Ron Paul simply fire people without cause?
And even if Ron Paul was completely unaware of the contents BEFORE the story went public, he was more than aware of them AFTER the story went public. What was his response then? - wedges, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1i officially deny that i am currently, have ever been, or ever will be a member of digg.
see, i said it! it must be true. - colincornaby, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1So it doesn't matter at all that Ron Paul allowed this to be published under his name? Do you honestly think he never read his own newsletter?
- Minarchian, on 01/08/2008, -29/+8This neo-con web site is not MSM.
- Brendan2026, on 01/08/2008, -39/+24*deep, soul-healing gut laughter*
- Ricemanstm, on 01/08/2008, -56/+36Sorry Ru Paul supporters...looks like your skeletons have been unearthed.
- Minarchian, on 01/08/2008, -25/+8Unearthed to what?
The site is down.- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -8/+9Here is the article:
If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation praised "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jack Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."
Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.
Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Army surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a non-profit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black congresswoman Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first-person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books.
The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."
The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."
Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."
This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."
Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently
- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -8/+9Here is the article:
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -15/+9HE UNEARTHED THE SKELETON OF RON PAUL BEING A HORRIBLE NEWSLETTER EDITOR!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -8/+13If you put out a newsletter under your name filled with outrageous, racist rants that would make the Klan proud, that's more than "bad editing."
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -6/+6in that case...I heard a Fox news reporter use what could be deemed racially insensitive language.
Rupert Murdoch is a racist!!!- zsOverman, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1"... what could be deemed racially insensitive language..."
Dude, have you read what's in these newsletters? We're way beyond a matter of innuendo here. If Rupert Murdoch allowed statements like were in the RP newsletters to go across the Fox News anchor desk for years... then YES, that would suggest racism on HIS part, and no amount of "I don't even watch my own TV channel, I wasn't aware that was going on" would exonerate him.
- zsOverman, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1"... what could be deemed racially insensitive language..."
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -6/+6in that case...I heard a Fox news reporter use what could be deemed racially insensitive language.
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -8/+13If you put out a newsletter under your name filled with outrageous, racist rants that would make the Klan proud, that's more than "bad editing."
- Minarchian, on 01/08/2008, -25/+8Unearthed to what?
- mattsw84, on 01/08/2008, -50/+32Ha Ha Ron Paul is a racist, anti-semite whose ignorant supporters sent their life savings so he could place 5th in NH and 4th in Iowa and not at all in Wyoming.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -9/+7tin foil, anyone?
- diffraction, on 01/08/2008, -10/+6Yes, Ron Paul, the anti-semite. He hated Jews so much he named his son Rand after the Jewish author Ayan Rand.
- BabyWookie, on 01/09/2008, -3/+2Wow. Really? That's really ***** pathetic, if true. She was a horrible writer and a truly ugly human being.
- TyroPyro, on 01/08/2008, -35/+14RON PAUL = SEAN PAUL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEcf8FKd5fI- chaosium, on 01/08/2008, -11/+12OTOH Sean Paul supports gays and minorities, I would rather vote for him.
- TheMahdi, on 01/08/2008, -50/+38I think I just heard the sound a blimp deflating and crashing somewhere...
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -12/+9yeah i'm sure this is really going to hurt his campaign...a couple conspiracy nuts on digg inventing stories!
He's done for! hahah- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -9/+14This story wasn't created by conspiracy nuts on Digg. The story was created when Ron Paul spent decades publishing racist rants under his name. The story was unearthed by a writer at The New Republic who was willing to do the work and collect copies of these newsletters. And it is anything but invented. You can even find scans of the newsletters on The New Republic's website.
- evandi, on 01/08/2008, -9/+9It was saved till the very day of a primary, coincidence? Ahh, no way! Maybe they knew he could refute it? Yep, because he already did in one of his congressional campaigns. It was brought up then and debunked and he won.
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -5/+9Please explain how it was "debunked."
- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -6/+10He hasn't debunked it. He's denied it and tried to shift the blame to some un-named person. There's some real integrity for you.
- evandi, on 01/08/2008, -9/+9It was saved till the very day of a primary, coincidence? Ahh, no way! Maybe they knew he could refute it? Yep, because he already did in one of his congressional campaigns. It was brought up then and debunked and he won.
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -9/+14This story wasn't created by conspiracy nuts on Digg. The story was created when Ron Paul spent decades publishing racist rants under his name. The story was unearthed by a writer at The New Republic who was willing to do the work and collect copies of these newsletters. And it is anything but invented. You can even find scans of the newsletters on The New Republic's website.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -12/+9yeah i'm sure this is really going to hurt his campaign...a couple conspiracy nuts on digg inventing stories!
- Williamthe5th, on 01/08/2008, -53/+5JOHN MCCAIN!
- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -4/+9Let's not lose our heads here.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -3/+6herkimer you don't like McCain? You sure?
He wants to bomb dem a-rabs.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -3/+6herkimer you don't like McCain? You sure?
- Clearfire18, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2Is more of a nut job then Bush!!
- Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -4/+9Let's not lose our heads here.
- KingRhymes, on 01/08/2008, -34/+24 Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.
These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.
The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.
“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”
This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.
Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”
Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.
An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:
"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...
"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul
The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.
Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”- DooM, on 01/08/2008, -9/+10If your name is on it and you permit filth like that to be printed under your name for YEARS AND YEARS without putting a stop to it you have tacitly endorsed those viewpoints. I think Ron Paul is correct when he said of the writings: "I had some moral responsibility for them . . ." You are correct, sir.
- card51short, on 01/08/2008, -8/+6stop it with that! you're ruining all the conspiracy theorists fun!
- EditorResponse, on 01/08/2008, -10/+9As for PROOF that Ron Paul did not write or endorse any of the writings we need to see a lawsuit filed on behalf of Ron Paul for misappropriation of his name...OTHERWISE HE FULLY ENDORSED his name being used for the statements made.
- kfed2, on 01/09/2008, -3/+3I am EditorResponse, and I like to paste the same thing on digg over and over - look at my profile, comments section.
PS Does the name EditorResponse sound commanding?
- kfed2, on 01/09/2008, -3/+3I am EditorResponse, and I like to paste the same thing on digg over and over - look at my profile, comments section.
- Meursault, on 01/08/2008, -38/+21Now you just have to convince your friends that they misheard you all these months and that you were actually supporting Ru Paul for president, the living embodiment of change.
- Nahor, on 01/08/2008, -37/+44I am a Ron Paul supporter, but if this is true, I can not in good conscience support the man. This has a lot of really bad stuff in it, and if it's true then I have some apologizing to do. I still firmly support the message of getting back to the Constitution, but, again, I can't support this kind of behavior.
- DooM, on 01/08/2008, -22/+18Ditto. I just took my Ron Paul bumper sticker off my car window... now off to re-edit my Myspace page. Hurm... this sucks.
- rizzo2008, on 01/09/2008, -5/+2you are too easily deceived. He is not a racist but claims that our group association mentality actually perpetuates racism. To say that blacks commit a higher rate of crime as a percentage of their population is a fact and is ignorant to ignore that (nothing racist about statistics and facts)
- vbullinger, on 01/08/2008, -14/+17It isn't:
Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.
These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.
The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.
“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”
This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.
Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”
Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.
An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:
"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...
"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul
The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.
Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”- obelisky, on 01/08/2008, -7/+13ya only has his name at the top and were published for years... if he didn't know, isn't that a bad thing as well?
- flogistan, on 01/08/2008, -9/+9Attributing these quotes to Ron Paul is like putting him in prison because someone put his face on a liberty dollar. H didn't write this stuff. The article itself says it. Unless he was the editor of the publications, there's nothing there. It's like claiming that everything that has ever been written in the name of the john birch society is a quote from john birch. This is crap. Read the article a few times until you understand what they are saying and what they aren't saying. They tell you he didn't write the articles.
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -6/+9He put his name on the newsletters. The newsletters were published by organizations he founded or owned in part. These newsletters were affiliated with Ron Paul and his organizations; they were not independent of him.
This is quite clearly not the same as your examples. - Herkimer56, on 01/08/2008, -9/+9He allowed it to be published under his name and the articles were written in a way which would lead a reader to believe that he wrote them. If he didn't write them he might as well have because either way he's equally responsible for the content of the articles.
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -6/+9He put his name on the newsletters. The newsletters were published by organizations he founded or owned in part. These newsletters were affiliated with Ron Paul and his organizations; they were not independent of him.
- polymyxin, on 01/08/2008, -8/+11What's your source for this? Your link does not support the rest of your comment at all. Let's look at the facts: these newsletters were published under Ron Paul's name. They were published by a non-profit organization founded by Ron Paul, and by an organization owned in part by, and named after, Ron Paul.
To the best of my knowledge, Ron Paul has never said he was not aware of the contents of these newsletters. He didn't say that in 1996, when his Democratic opponent called attention to the racist articles in his newsletters. His opponent specifically addressed newsletters claiming that black teenagers are "unbelievably fleet-footed" and that 95% of black males in Washington DC are criminals. Ron Paul's response? He defended his newsletters, and said the articles were based on "current events and statistical reports of the time." You even use this quote in your comment -- very interesting that you include quotes on Ron Paul defending these newsletters even as you say he has no knowledge of them!
Let's recap: These newsletters were published under Ron Paul's name. They were p
- DooM, on 01/08/2008, -22/+18Ditto. I just took my Ron Paul bumper sticker off my car window... now off to re-edit my Myspace page. Hurm... this sucks.